U.S. proposal for two prmanent African seats on UN security council: Genuine reform or strategic maneuver?

Calls for reform of the United Nations Security Council have intensified over the years, with its current structure often criticized for its failure to address global security threats.

Amidst these calls, the United States has expressed support for adding two permanent seats for African nations, sparking debates over the true intentions behind the proposal.

The discussion gained traction in light of the ongoing Israeli military campaign against Gaza, which, backed by the U.S., has led to over 137,000 Palestinian casualties and more than 10,000 missing.

The perceived inaction of the UN during this crisis has fueled demands for change, with many arguing that the Security Council’s structure no longer reflects the geopolitical realities of today’s world.

On September 12, the U.S. announced its backing for the addition of two permanent African seats and a non-permanent seat for small island nations.

Washington’s move is seen as part of a broader strategy to repair its image in Africa, following criticism for its support of Israel, and to counter China’s growing influence in the Pacific Islands.

Some analysts view this proposal as part of the U.S.’s broader geopolitical strategy.

Moroccan international relations expert Mohamed Chekir believes the U.S. is aiming to secure the support of African allies, particularly in light of France’s diminishing role in several African regions.

“The U.S. wants to ensure that Africa has a presence in the Security Council, but it also wants to make sure those seats are occupied by allies who align with its interests,” Chekir remarked.

African countries, including South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, and Morocco, are among the potential candidates for these seats.

Political scientist Mohamed Amrani Boukhobza emphasized that African nations have historically been excluded from meaningful representation in global governance.

“This proposal is significant because Africa is home to emerging powers that are becoming more influential on the global stage,” he said, pointing to countries like South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Nigeria.

Boukhobza further highlighted that the debate is not only about securing African representation but also about whether the new seats will come with veto power or be purely symbolic.

He stressed that a nation’s ability to represent the continent’s interests will be crucial in determining which countries are selected for these seats.

Morocco, in particular, has gained recognition for its role on the international stage.

As the second-largest investor in Africa, with strong ties to the U.S., the European Union, and China, the country has positioned itself as a rising power, noted Boukhobza.

Other countries, such as Algeria, are also considered viable contenders for these coveted positions.

However, many African nations argue that any reform must go beyond simply adding seats.

They call for changes in how the Council operates, including the use of the veto and greater cooperation between the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Some even advocate for the complete abolition of the veto to ensure decisions reflect a broader consensus among the 193 UN member states.

The debate over Security Council reform is expected to continue throughout the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, which runs until the end of September.

While the U.S. proposal has sparked both hope and skepticism, it remains to be seen whether this marks the beginning of a genuine shift toward greater global representation, or if it is merely a geopolitical tactic in an increasingly competitive world.